dimreepr

You'll note the question mark... A small mention that you've made in other threads... Why are you so angry, that I've asked question's? And before you claim your not angry, why then the barrage of insult's? This is a discussion, not a conflict You really should watch this, I paid for an argument not abuse.

That wasn't meant literally, it's a culmination of the rhetoric from my topic "What is justice", which has, for some reason, boiled over into this thread.

White man speak with forked tongue. Yes that's a philosophical statement and no I'm not a philosopher. Australia managed to before the arrival of western sensibilities... I'll explain further, in the correct thread. Like I said, engage with the topic in an appropriate way or not at all. Otherwise I'll seek a higher authority via the report button

I'm getting a bit tired of this abuse, either engage with the topic or stop posting.

There's no such thing as fish... I think perhaps the difference is more fundamental, science is able to stand on the shoulders of other's because 'the other's' are well understood, I can't stand on the shoulder of Buddha, until I understand...

Which is? Why is it condescending, in a recent thread of yours you held him up as an arbiter of truth in matters of religion; in which he is "just a good physicist", I'd say that's a matter of fact (if I didn't think a fact is just a fleeting concept that you choose to accept is real on the face of it). Why is a description of reality more valid than a way to find out/live? Also, why are you posting on the philosophy forum when you don't think philosophy is valid?

My nemesis is your nemesis...

I'd like too...

What happens when we take the blue pill???

Doesn't that describe, the difference?

You could always, try asking yourself; he who is without sin etc... Original sin, is not about innocence; it's about forgiving oneself for not being innocent...

Sorry, I meant to post the full version...

How can you be so sure?

How can I cite my philosophy (I don't what it is, as I'm sure @Eise will attest)? I'm just 'trying' to explain what I've learned. That would be a good starting point.

Yet you cite the scientific method with all the zeal of a priest citing the bible. You understand your bible in much the same way as a priest does, it's what you've been taught, not what you've learned for yourself.

I know how a car work's, but when it breaks down I have to trust a mechanic to fix it, I have no alternative but to have faith that he/she can.

No, you just assume I'm not able because I have brittle bone disease, it's like having an eye spy contest for the blind.

I'm not your enemy, winter is your enemy...

Such faith, the god of the gaps argument in reverse.

I'm suggesting contentment as an hypothesis in how to interpret their meaning and see beyond the 'so called' contradictions. "I didn't say both were correct. I said the analogy of Newton-Einstein and Jesus-Muhammad was good: in both cases, the person who lived later had the other's ideas to draw on." Einstein had the benefit of understanding the language Newton used and could build on that. Muhammad only understood the concept of what Jesus was trying to teach, not the language; so he had to build again. It's remarkable how similar the building's look with no blueprints, measurements or testing...

I think, perhaps, it's the language; as Markus said in another of my topic's, if you understand the language of mathematics, you can just shut up and calculate and come to the same conclusion's as any other physicist. To avoid any ambiguity, I'm a philosophy convert.

I like Frankie Boyle's take. Read more here... Here's a practical use. https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/bjmh.2020.0019?download=true&journalCode=bjmh

So is history, the difference?